As a liberal who supported Barack Obama in his presidential bid I cannot help but feel disappointed.

He has dramatically increased the national debt and has no plan on addressing it, i am particularly dissatisfied with this because I think Bill Clinton's handling of the budget and national debt was the best aspect of his administration.

Secondly I feel he hasn't been nearly as tough as he should be when it comes to the health care debate, he has allowed the Republicans and Democrats who bow to special interests, to destroy health care reform with spear tactics and lies.

My question is are there other Liberals or supporters of Barack Obama who feel disappointed? and if so why?

I am a Liberal who is disappointed with some aspects of Obama's administration so far, but possibly not to the extent that you are - maybe because my expectations weren't that high.

The debt and deficit are major issues for me, but I didn't expect any concrete actions yet on it this early. As a Canadian, I believe he should have stopped Congress from passing the Buy American clause in the stimulus funding; he's made me want to support my Prime Minister's actions on this issue, and I really dislike my Prime Minister.

I can tell that this healthcare reform isn't going to go anywhere without a show of leadership from him, and the rest of the Dems actually. They have not handled it well at all, and that is causing support to drop for it. Especially with the death of Kennedy, Obama needs to kick it into high gear. Show Americans the benefits, show them the reality, and stop on these falsehoods that are thriving in this town hall turmoil.

All that being said, I'm impressed with his foreign policy actions so far. He's done a lot on the Muslim front and has actually said concrete things against the Israeli settlement program in the West Bank - that is impressive, and something I was so cynical about, because I never expected to see it from an American president!

But, this isn't that far into his presidency yet. He's trying to tackle too much at once, and the expectations over him were raised way too high; people have to realize that there is only so much that can happen in such a short period of time. Obama isn't some divine being; he's a normal man with limitations on what he can do.

Overall, I still support Obama. He is doing things that I agree with, but he just needs to be more active and aggressive on some issues. If he starts raising hell, then we'll see some progression.

At 8/30/2009 10:18:25 PM, JBlake wrote:That deficit will help make our economic recovery faster and less severe.

That isn't really the thing that matters; I think as generally left-leaning liberals, we can agree with deficit spending is needed. But the amount the deficit has been increased by, and the fact that there is no concrete plan seen yet as to how you get out of deficit spending, is the problem.

That being said, I don't know enough about economics to really have a say. All I know is that I am a Paul Martin economic ideologue, and our first commandment is that deficits are bad.

At 8/30/2009 10:23:19 PM, Volkov wrote:That isn't really the thing that matters; I think as generally left-leaning liberals, we can agree with deficit spending is needed. But the amount the deficit has been increased by, and the fact that there is no concrete plan seen yet as to how you get out of deficit spending, is the problem.

That being said, I don't know enough about economics to really have a say. All I know is that I am a Paul Martin economic ideologue, and our first commandment is that deficits are bad.

Deficits are not bad if you get a positive good out of it. Like any credit. If you use your credit to buy a pound of marijuana, it would be a bad deficit in the long run. If you used it to buy a house, it would be a good deficit in the long run.

Of course, if you spend more than you have the ability to pay for then it is a bad deficit. I am not sure we have reached that point, or that we will under Obama. But at some point we'll have to seek ways to decrease our deficit spending (As you mentioned).

At 8/30/2009 10:29:10 PM, JBlake wrote:Deficits are not bad if you get a positive good out of it. Like any credit. If you use your credit to buy a pound of marijuana, it would be a bad deficit in the long run. If you used it to buy a house, it would be a good deficit in the long run.

The difference is that isn't necessarily a structural deficit; going into deficit over one action is a lot different than going into deficit from that one action, and then continuing it on with different actions that keep increasing the deficit, and so on. I'm afraid that is where Obama is heading, just as Bush did, and unless the US starts smacking down that deficit now, there will be issues in the future, and Obama will get the blame.

At 8/30/2009 10:23:19 PM, Volkov wrote:That isn't really the thing that matters; I think as generally left-leaning liberals, we can agree with deficit spending is needed. But the amount the deficit has been increased by, and the fact that there is no concrete plan seen yet as to how you get out of deficit spending, is the problem.

That being said, I don't know enough about economics to really have a say. All I know is that I am a Paul Martin economic ideologue, and our first commandment is that deficits are bad.

Deficits are not bad if you get a positive good out of it. Like any credit. If you use your credit to buy a pound of marijuana, it would be a bad deficit in the long run. If you used it to buy a house, it would be a good deficit in the long run.

Of course, if you spend more than you have the ability to pay for then it is a bad deficit. I am not sure we have reached that point, or that we will under Obama. But at some point we'll have to seek ways to decrease our deficit spending (As you mentioned).

Even if that credit is used responsibly there will be serious repercussions if you fail to repay your creditors.

During the Suez Crisis the United States had been given leverage over the British because they were in enormous debt to the United States after WW2, Do you really want China and OPEC countries to have that much leverage over our ability to make our own choices?

Certainly in the long run we should seek to lover the ratio of debt to GDP, as well as deficit spending. Right now we have a recovery to support. Right now is not the time.

The point I was making is that deficit spending and debt is not always bad. Right now we have a valid reason for both. Since they are both within sustainable rates, we can afford to wait out the economic crisis.

I predict this will be one of the major issues in 2012. Obama will either begin to work toward less spending near the end of the first term, or will promise to make more sustainability a top priority.

At 8/30/2009 9:58:34 PM, FlavourWave wrote:As a liberal who supported Barack Obama in his presidential bid I cannot help but feel disappointed.

He has dramatically increased the national debt and has no plan on addressing it, i am particularly dissatisfied with this because I think Bill Clinton's handling of the budget and national debt was the best aspect of his administration.

True, but that he would go in and say "This handling of the crisis is stupid" was always too much to ask for. I think he has also done many good things so far. Maybe he isn't Bill Clinton, but he still, so far, has been doing reasonably well.

There are no perfect politicians, because politics is a very unperfect business. You have to rate them on a scale from "Pol-Pot" to "Oh, not bad". And Obama is in "Oh, not bad".

At 8/30/2009 11:00:12 PM, JBlake wrote:Certainly in the long run we should seek to lover the ratio of debt to GDP, as well as deficit spending. Right now we have a recovery to support. Right now is not the time.

I lolled so hard. This reminds me of something, but I can't put my finger on it.

I predict this will be one of the major issues in 2012.

Oh, so that's why he made the "stimulus package". How in the hell did that get past me?

: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?

At 8/30/2009 11:00:12 PM, JBlake wrote:Certainly in the long run we should seek to lover the ratio of debt to GDP, as well as deficit spending. Right now we have a recovery to support. Right now is not the time.

I lolled so hard. This reminds me of something, but I can't put my finger on it.

I gots it.

I'm not a fan of liberals, and I'm certainly not a fan of putting black people on a pedastal because every group is being put on a pedastal these days (as long as it's not an average or above average income white male) for the victim mentality that seems so popular, but I thought this quote was pretty nice. I'm sure it was associated with Obama at some point and Obama probably used the same concept himself. Hence, why I thought it was so hilarious. Anyways, without further ado:

[...] Well, would you kindly tell me when that day is gonna come? Is it going to come tomorrow? Is it going to come next week? In a hundred years? Never? No, the time for justice, the time for freedom, and the time for equality is always, is always right now! - (Samantha Booke from "The Great Debaters")

: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?

At 8/30/2009 9:58:34 PM, FlavourWave wrote:Secondly I feel he hasn't been nearly as tough as he should be when it comes to the health care debate, he has allowed the Republicans and Democrats who bow to special interests, to destroy health care reform with spear tactics and lies.

That would be most of them.

It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.

At 8/31/2009 7:55:36 PM, Nags wrote:Not spending more than what you have.

: -Balanced budget

-Reduce deficit and debt

-Lower taxes

I agree with the bolded, though I have a hard time getting too deep into lowering taxes; I believe you can lower taxes when you organize your finances in such a way that they are efficient and use less money than they would with waste, but there is only so far you can lower taxes before you start destroying the programs they fund.

And that is what is needed from the Obama administration. I haven't seen that yet, but God, do I hope I see it soon.

I am not sure we have reached that point, or that we will under Obama.

We reached it when we made Social Security. That's why it keeps increasing. If we were going to be able to pay for any of this stuff, we'd have done it by now.

When was Social Security created, and when was the last time the US had a budget surplus? If it wasn't before 2002, then you'll need to explain this. Also explain how Canada seems to be fine with it.

Being able to pay for a program's costs over a very short period (parts of the Clinton administration)=/= being able to pay for it over the full term. The correct question to ask would not be "when did we last have a surplus" at levels of low spending or high taxes that we didn't show we could sustain but "when did we last have zero debt?" If you could show our DEBT (not our deficit) zeroed at some point since social security, that would be a demonstration that it is a program that can be sustained at least in fiscal terms. If you are in debt for a time, as for a house, fine, but you should not have debt eternal.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 8/31/2009 8:09:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:Being able to pay for a program's costs over a very short period (parts of the Clinton administration)=/= being able to pay for it over the full term. The correct question to ask would not be "when did we last have a surplus" at levels of low spending or high taxes that we didn't show we could sustain but "when did we last have zero debt?" If you could show our DEBT (not our deficit) zeroed at some point since social security, that would be a demonstration that it is a program that can be sustained at least in fiscal terms. If you are in debt for a time, as for a house, fine, but you should not have debt eternal.

You're sort of right, except for the fact that there has been times since when social security was implemented when, while the debt was not zero, it has been paid off in fairly large amounts; I can't tell you exactly when this was at the moment - I think it was either during Kennedy's administration.

But, regardless, I don't agree with the opinion that social security is not the "house debt." It may take awhile to pay it off, but with good fiscal management, you can start reducing the debt while keeping social security intact.

How can it be a house debt when it's freaking eternal? Every time someone grows old, you need to pay it all over again. And people are getting older. What fiscal management tricks will enable you to get rid of it?

Keep in mind Kennedy was when the Baby Boomers started working. If close is all you got, near the peak of the cycle for you, at a time with many fewer other commitments than you have now (keep in mind you advocate blinkin UHC, which makes social security look like chump change, especially when you treat it as a "right"), how the heck do you expect to outmanage that and sustain it when we're gonna be at the bottom of such a cycle and for that matter probably not see a top that big again (which only resulted from a world war)?

For that matter has Canada ever been out of debt? And Canada's not even a comparable example to the US in terms of spending, because nobody who doesn't want to f*** militarily with the US wants to with Canada, and nobody does thinks it worth their time, so it has it's defense free and the subsidy is even more secure than Europe due to geography :).

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.